The pressure builds all the way to the end of a championship, as we have seen many times. It is that last part of the season, where mistakes can end a championship challenge on the spot, that Lewis did not have. Because the McLaren had pace, for maybe two thirds of the season Lewis had the possibility of reeling in the championship lead with performance. When it started to slip away, there must have been frustration but I don't think he was ever in a position where a single driving error would have cost him a likely WDC. Alonso, by contrast, had no hope of winning races for most of the second half of the season so points lost due to a driving mistake would not be recoverable (e.g. he could never hope to recover the points lost in Japan on pace). Nonetheless, he absolutely had to make up places on his poor grid positions, and overtake multiple cars in the opening laps. One minor error while doing this cost him the championship. That is pressure, and it is completely different to the situation Lewis was in.

Alonso was still considered the best driver of 2012 even though he didn't respond particularly well to the pressure and was matched/outperformed by his teammate during the title run-in

I reckon even earlier...2010. I don't think Lewis's relationship with McLaren was ever the same after Jenson joined the team.

I think it all started then but the beginning of the end was Liegate. I have a feeling that was the start of his disillusionment. It had a very profound effect on both Lewis and his reputation, he was pilloried in the press and the whole mess was almost responsible for him leaving F1.

I think it all started then but the beginning of the end was Liegate. I have a feeling that was the start of his disillusionment. It had a very profound effect on both Lewis and his reputation, he was pilloried in the press and the whole mess was almost responsible for him leaving F1.

That was soon after the WDC and almost four years ago. I don't buy that it almost caused him to leave F1, but it must have caused him to think about things a bit. It cost Dave Ryan his job, of course, and also ensured Ron was further sidelined. The biggest question for me is why the relationship with Ron deteriorated (quite badly by the end, it seems), and when that started to happen. That seems to me to be a key question.

1. Basically chose to leave the SECOND fastest car for the 5th fastest one, possibly as a consequence of disharmony between he and his team (jumping ship does not equal solving the problem)4. Involved in 3 race ending collisions completely perpetrated by others: 2 extremely ambitious and ill-advised moves by Maldonado and Hulkenburg and sheer tunnel vision by Grosjean.5. Conspired with his team to again make a number of less than perfect calls during wet races. Balance that with races where he has stayed out as long on longer than anyone else on softs. This is something that many said Hamilton couldn't do (and Button could) as a function of driving style.

Everybody wants to hang their hats on the Maldonado incident as representing a deficiency in Hamilton. Let's look at this a slightly different way. It seems to me that a lot of competitive driving is territorial. By that I mean you have to stake your claim as to what you are likely to do in a given situation. For example, if you approach a corner beside another driver, that other driver may have the mind set that you, not he, will be the one to lift first. So, some have gotten the reputation that they will NOT be the first to lift and one should prepare accordingly. In other words, you stake out YOUR territory. Conversely, others have gotten the reputation that they will always lift first. If you are a multiple race winner and a WDC, do you really want people to think that they can push you around and take advantage of you? You can rest assured that Maldonado and Hulkenburg will think twice the next time this situation happens. I would also think that it shows a lack of respect on the part of Maldonado and Hulkenburg. It used to be that junior drivers were more deferential towards senior drivers. It was not like this in Fangio's time or Clark's, but it has become the norm in Senna's and Schumacher's time. Not a good sign.

I believe that Hamilton is an extremely competitive person. That's what his motivation is. As I said above, he figured out how to adapt to the Pirellis. Funny that no one has said that they actually got the prediction wrong. However, it is also said that he isn't that great as a test driver. Personally I wouldn't bet against anything that would stand between Hamilton and winning.

Everybody wants to hang their hats on the Maldonado incident as representing a deficiency in Hamilton. Let's look at this a slightly different way. It seems to me that a lot of competitive driving is territorial. By that I mean you have to stake your claim as to what you are likely to do in a given situation. For example, if you approach a corner beside another driver, that other driver may have the mind set that you, not he, will be the one to lift first. So, some have gotten the reputation that they will NOT be the first to lift and one should prepare accordingly. In other words, you stake out YOUR territory. Conversely, others have gotten the reputation that they will always lift first. If you are a multiple race winner and a WDC, do you really want people to think that they can push you around and take advantage of you? You can rest assured that Maldonado and Hulkenburg will think twice the next time this situation happens. I would also think that it shows a lack of respect on the part of Maldonado and Hulkenburg. It used to be that junior drivers were more deferential towards senior drivers. It was not like this in Fangio's time or Clark's, but it has become the norm in Senna's and Schumacher's time. Not a good sign.

Taking this as a separate point to the Maldonado or Hulkenberg incident, the point of this approach should be to reach a stage where the crashes do not happen. The other driver may be more to blame in any given incident, but if any driver with designs on the WDC fails to finish a race due to an incident HE could have avoided then perhaps he needs to reflect on why he didn't avoid it.

I'm not sure Maldonado or Hulkenberg will approach dicing with Lewis any differently to dicing with any other driver in future.

Taking this as a separate point to the Maldonado or Hulkenberg incident, the point of this approach should be to reach a stage where the crashes do not happen. The other driver may be more to blame in any given incident, but if any driver with designs on the WDC fails to finish a race due to an incident HE could have avoided then perhaps he needs to reflect on why he didn't avoid it.

I'm not sure Maldonado or Hulkenberg will approach dicing with Lewis any differently to dicing with any other driver in future.

Which he can only know after the incident has happend. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

From your list of 5 points, the first three are all criticisms of how he conducts himself as a person. I don't rate drivers based on how well they can schmoozy up to others, I judge them almost exclusively on how they perform on track, so long as they do perform on track. If Hamilton rants at his team and then goes on to dominate a race from pole, he still gets a 10/10 from me, as would any other driver in that position. Twittergate made a laughing stock out of him, but he drove near faultlessly for the rest of the season. That's what counts for me. If the question was "who's the most politically shrewd driver", then i'd rank the drivers completely differently, and indeed Hamilton would be quite far down that list. I hope others understand that i'm not much fussed on Lewis Hamilton the person, I do admire and relate to certain aspects of him as a person, but by and large I have very little in common with him and find a lot of his behaviour and thinking completely bizarre and cringeworthy. But he's an amazing racing driver, and that's what I rate him on.

Now, I appreciate you're getting at how a driver's personal interactions affect their opportunity to win, but I see that as a separate discussion. Alonso's actions in 2007 indirectly resulted in two barren years in 2008/2009 in an uncompetitive Renault, but they didn't diminish how good a driver he was. When the dust is settled on their careers, I won't look at Alonso's behaviour in 2007 as evidence that he wasn't as good as some say. Had he played his cards differently, he may well have won more WDC's and races come the end, but as you know that's not how I rate drivers. Schumacher partly engineered a favourable set of circumstances for himself to rack up a lot of wins and championships with Ferrari, but he wasn't able to convince most that he was any better than Senna was, despite having so many more accolades.

With Hamilton, if he narrowly fails to win the title in a semi-competitive Mercedes for the next three years running, and loses out to JB each and every time in a car that is the class of the field - that would put JB on 4 titles and Hamilton on 1, but still i'd have seen nothing that suggests JB is the better driver, not in terms of pushing the pedals and turning the wheel. I'm not some masochist though, I want Hamilton to win more titles, but it won't fundamentally affect how I rate him. At the end of 2010, I suspected Kubica might be the best driver of the lot, I still have that suspicion.

About your other points, the fourth is extremely unfair on Hamilton. All three collisions resulted in penalties for the other driver, and in two of them Hamilton could not reasonably be expected to have done anything differently. It's absurd to hold anything against him for either his Spa or Brazil retirements. Regarding Valencia, although the collision itself was Maldonado's error, I heavily criticised Hamilton at the time, and argued with several other LH fans about his lack of foresight and perspective in that incident. It's the one bona fide, on track error of judgement I hold against him in the whole of 2012, his year was really that good. However, it's a valid criticism of his approach as a driver, but I see it more as a double edged sword - the same mental approach (always fight) has won him races that most others couldn't have in the same position e.g. Hockenheim 2008, Canada 2010, Shanghai 2011, Nurburgring 2011.

On point 5, I partly agree with this. I've said before that Button is probably better on slicks on a damp track than Hamilton, it's when he's most in his element, and I don't think it's a coincidence that he stayed out at China in 2010 and Brazil 2012 and that those decisions paid off handsomely - he was more comfortable in those conditions than Hamilton, and Hamilton most likely pitted to try to steal a march on him. However, both of these calls involved a lot of luck as well, they could both easily have gone the other way.

Fair points, I can obviously see it from your side, but fundamentally where you say how he acts as a person doesn't affect how good he is as a driver, my opinion is massively the opposite. It does! My abiding principle is that all sports are ultimately a battle of the mind. You say that Alonso's actions cause him to spend 2 years in an uncompetitive Renault, but didn't affect him as a driver. I say it precisely DID affect him as a driver as he ended up in an uncompetitive car as a consequence of his behavior! As its a car-dependant sport, where a major objective is to get into the fastest one, I don't see how that can be debated or excluded. Now lets just say without going into details again that Lewis' character in its various guises and manifestations definitely DOES affect him as a driver, be it how he works with his engineers, or how he drives on track. Ps. totally agree it has its upsides too, but clearly not on balance because his character is the main reason why his speed hasn't been enough to win multiple titles.

I think this is good news for Hamilton. He's generally showing an upward curve in this area that you would expect with experience. Not sure how Button on the other hand will learn to be "faster". That is essentially God given.

Everybody wants to hang their hats on the Maldonado incident as representing a deficiency in Hamilton.

Please don't edit my posts before you reply to them. I did not comment on whose fault the incidents were, I am pretty sure you are breaking forum rules to present my post as though I did.

The point I was making is not whose fault the incidents are, 3 race enders in a year, from memory about 9 in 3 years. So what if none of them were Hamiltons fault. Whilst it can always be someone else's fault, it is possible not to be involved in so many in the first place with a different approach to racing.

Bottom line is we're all agreed that Hamilton is one of the fastest and best racers out there. So what is it that is preventing him from being more consistent and successful. Most Hamilton fans will say LUCK and the TEAM.

I say its in his MENTAL APPROACH to racing, in all its forms that is the cause. I am also saying I can see he's improving and expect him to really be much better in this area in the future.

Don't see what is so unfair about that its just a different reason for the same thing we're all agreed on. That Hamilton is capable of more.

Please don't edit my posts before you reply to them. I did not comment on whose fault the incidents were, I am pretty sure you are breaking forum rules to present my post as though I did.

The point I was making is not whose fault the incidents are, 3 race enders in a year, from memory about 9 in 3 years. So what if none of them were Hamiltons fault. Whilst it can always be someone else's fault, it is possible not to be involved in so many in the first place with a different approach to racing. Bottom line is we're all agreed that Hamilton is one of the fastest and best racers out there. So what is it that is preventing him from being more consistent and successful. Most Hamilton fans will say LUCK and the TEAM.

I say its in his MENTAL APPROACH to racing, in all its forms that is the cause. I am also saying I can see he's improving and expect him to really be much better in this area in the future.

Don't see what is so unfair about that its just a different reason for the same thing we're all agreed on. That Hamilton is capable of more.

But the point is it probably wasn't possible for lewis to not have been involved in two of those incidents last year, whereas with one of them I'd agree with you based on strategy rather than any fault with the technique of his driving.

So it depends what you mean by 'so what if none of them were hamilton's fault'? If you mean technically not his fault but could be avoided (Valencia) I'd agree with you but a driver could get wiped out at the first corner in every GP by Romain and it certainly would be relevant that it wasn't is fault.

2011 total different kettle of fish obviously but his approach in this area in 2012 was almost perfect imo.

Taking this as a separate point to the Maldonado or Hulkenberg incident, the point of this approach should be to reach a stage where the crashes do not happen. The other driver may be more to blame in any given incident, but if any driver with designs on the WDC fails to finish a race due to an incident HE could have avoided then perhaps he needs to reflect on why he didn't avoid it. I'm not sure Maldonado or Hulkenberg will approach dicing with Lewis any differently to dicing with any other driver in future.

Agreed, I would hope that Lewis reflected on Valencia, as that is a key part of his armoury he is missing via alonso (strategic decisions) but also that he realised he was blameless in spa and brazil.

It's interesting that, after Canada when button was lapped, whitmarsh authorised the swapping of chassis at races. The most likely reason for this? To make things more equal? Prove to button the chassis are equal? Whatever the reason, Lewis struggled for setup that weekend, jb found some form. I commend Lewis for keeping quiet about this, think about it, the chamssis you just won in, replaced by a lapped chassis, regardless of the engineering work done on it since, would rankle a bit.
McLaren, more focused on equality than winning.

The pressure builds all the way to the end of a championship, as we have seen many times. It is that last part of the season, where mistakes can end a championship challenge on the spot, that Lewis did not have. Because the McLaren had pace, for maybe two thirds of the season Lewis had the possibility of reeling in the championship lead with performance. When it started to slip away, there must have been frustration but I don't think he was ever in a position where a single driving error would have cost him a likely WDC. Alonso, by contrast, had no hope of winning races for most of the second half of the season so points lost due to a driving mistake would not be recoverable (e.g. he could never hope to recover the points lost in Japan on pace). Nonetheless, he absolutely had to make up places on his poor grid positions, and overtake multiple cars in the opening laps. One minor error while doing this cost him the championship. That is pressure, and it is completely different to the situation Lewis was in.

Fair enough but I would say it is an aspect to be considered rather than preventing any comparison, in the same way vettel got a much easier ride in the races in 2010/11 than lewis (and anyone else).

It's interesting that, after Canada when button was lapped, whitmarsh authorised the swapping of chassis at races. The most likely reason for this? To make things more equal? Prove to button the chassis are equal? Whatever the reason, Lewis struggled for setup that weekend, jb found some form. I commend Lewis for keeping quiet about this, think about it, the chamssis you just won in, replaced by a lapped chassis, regardless of the engineering work done on it since, would rankle a bit. McLaren, more focused on equality than winning.

It's interesting that, after Canada when button was lapped, whitmarsh authorised the swapping of chassis at races. The most likely reason for this? To make things more equal? Prove to button the chassis are equal? Whatever the reason, Lewis struggled for setup that weekend, jb found some form. I commend Lewis for keeping quiet about this, think about it, the chamssis you just won in, replaced by a lapped chassis, regardless of the engineering work done on it since, would rankle a bit. McLaren, more focused on equality than winning.

Alonso was still considered the best driver of 2012 even though he didn't respond particularly well to the pressure and was matched/outperformed by his teammate during the title run-in

You could argue that Vettel didn't respond brilliantly to the pressure either. He was outqualified by Webber in two of the final three races. In Abu Dhabi he nearly lost his front wing twice with badly judged moves; in Brazil he made a terrible start, then put the car in a vulnerable position leading to his collision with Senna.

Yes, in both cases his ultimate pace was strong, but if he'd lost his front wing or retired after the spin (either of which could easily have happened) then people would be talking about how Vettel choked.

Taking this as a separate point to the Maldonado or Hulkenberg incident, the point of this approach should be to reach a stage where the crashes do not happen. The other driver may be more to blame in any given incident, but if any driver with designs on the WDC fails to finish a race due to an incident HE could have avoided then perhaps he needs to reflect on why he didn't avoid it.

I'm not sure Maldonado or Hulkenberg will approach dicing with Lewis any differently to dicing with any other driver in future.

I agree. It's always been a big problem for Lewis that he gives midfield drivers too much respect and expects them to be able to drive like himself/Nando/Kimi/Sebi. Possibly his biggest problem.

Same thing last year if you look at the incidents - he was fine with Schumi at Monaco, but not with Massa and Maldo. Wasn't expecting Koba to be such an idiot as to kers up almost alongside and then turn in at Spa. Wasn't expecting DiResta to panic. Massa in India. Jenson in Canada.

And in 2010 Webber in Sing.

Of course asking him to be thrillingly aggressive EXCEPT when it backfires is being a bit greedy. Most of the time it works. And the others do it sometimes, like Nando in Japan on Kimi, or Sebi on Karthikeyan. Still, I am hoping he's learning to make allowances sometimes.

Interesting comments in the Motorsport magazine review of 2012 podcast about Lewis and Jenson, with Jody Scheckter suggesting that that Hamilton was in his opinion one of the best drivers in traffic and Button one of the worst. He thought that Button improved during his time at McLaren, but that Lewis had always been 'there'.

Interesting comments in the Motorsport magazine review of 2012 podcast about Lewis and Jenson, with Jody Scheckter suggesting that that Hamilton was in his opinion one of the best drivers in traffic and Button one of the worst. He thought that Button improved during his time at McLaren, but that Lewis had always been 'there'.

That is interesting, because I do remember often Jenson getting 'held up' in traffic. Often behind a slower Merc or some such car (I'm sure others have more detail)....

You could argue that Vettel didn't respond brilliantly to the pressure either. He was outqualified by Webber in two of the final three races. In Abu Dhabi he nearly lost his front wing twice with badly judged moves; in Brazil he made a terrible start, then put the car in a vulnerable position leading to his collision with Senna.

Yes, in both cases his ultimate pace was strong, but if he'd lost his front wing or retired after the spin (either of which could easily have happened) then people would be talking about how Vettel choked.

All very true. It was just a bit more obvious with Alonso because he didn't win the title and there was such a huge gulf in performance between him and Massa for most of the season. To keep it on topic I don't think having less pressure and making less mistakes(Hamilton '12) is any worse than having more pressure and making a few small errors (Alonso & Vettel '12) this is why I consider Hamilton equal best performer of 2012 along with Vettel, Alonso and probably Kimi. Button on the other hand imo had a poor season overall by his standards. He had some very good races and some rather bad ones. The good races are to be expected whereas the bad ones I think are unacceptable and I'm sure he'd agree that you can't have periods in a season when you're battling in the midfield while your teammate's running at the front and winning races, because you can't adapt to the car/tyres or find a good setup. If Perez had a similar season in 2013 I think it would be understandable because he's young and still learning but for a highly experienced WDC it isn't. Of course 2011 was the exact opposite with Hamilton having some wins and other positives but overall a terrible season by his standards while Button had an almost flawless season and was one of the drivers of the year. If someone like Grosjean or Maldonado had a similar season to Hamilton 2011 with as many wins and similar pace but too many incidents it would be more acceptable but with Hamilton it's not, so I think those two seasons are quite comparable. 2010 I think was the season that best reflects how the two compare imo. Very closely matched with Hamilton a little better.

It's interesting that, after Canada when button was lapped, whitmarsh authorised the swapping of chassis at races. The most likely reason for this? To make things more equal? Prove to button the chassis are equal? Whatever the reason, Lewis struggled for setup that weekend, jb found some form. I commend Lewis for keeping quiet about this, think about it, the chamssis you just won in, replaced by a lapped chassis, regardless of the engineering work done on it since, would rankle a bit. McLaren, more focused on equality than winning.

Why would McLaren limit each driver to their own chassis for a third of the season, then decided to swap them over between the drivers? If did that then the only reason would be to show there wasn't any differences between them, not because they thought Hamilton had had the good chassis for long enough. McLaren run 4 chassis and swap them around between drivers because they can't repair and repaint chassis between back to back and flyaway races.

If you are suggesting it was for 'equality' because they suspected they had a problem with one of the chassis so they decided Hamilton had to run the faulty chassis as well to even things out, why on earth would they do that when it's simpler to build a new car around a spare good chassis. If you are suggesting that Hamiltons drop in form was due to having to run the bad chassis that Button had been using previously, and Button suddenly started doing well after being given the good chassis, then this would also mean Buttons struggles before this could also be down to the faulty chassis not just down to Button and his engineers being useless.

It's interesting that, after Canada when button was lapped, whitmarsh authorised the swapping of chassis at races. The most likely reason for this? To make things more equal? Prove to button the chassis are equal? Whatever the reason, Lewis struggled for setup that weekend, jb found some form. I commend Lewis for keeping quiet about this, think about it, the chamssis you just won in, replaced by a lapped chassis, regardless of the engineering work done on it since, would rankle a bit. McLaren, more focused on equality than winning.

Indeed, but then it would rankle a bit if you were stuck with the crap chassis.

If that's true, it would indicate that there was a fault with Button's chassis which may explain some of his problems.

Indeed, but then it would rankle a bit if you were stuck with the crap chass,If that's true, it would indicate that there was a fault with Button's chassis which may explain some of his problems.

There was nothing wrong with the chassis. They interchanged chassis from Valencia onwards. you can guess why. I'm sure that kind of thing won't happen this year cos buttons the man to win a championship in his own words

There was nothing wrong with the chassis. They interchanged chassis from Valencia onwards. you can guess why. I'm sure that kind of thing won't happen this year cos buttons the man to win a championship in his own words

There was nothing wrong with the chassis. They interchanged chassis from Valencia onwards. you can guess why. I'm sure that kind of thing won't happen this year cos buttons the man to win a championship in his own words

there is no problem, Jenson thought there was, nevonertheless it took an engineers meeting, and a race weekend for Lewis to setup that car/chassis. From then on, Jenson didn't get lost, how can you when you're swapping chassis every weekend. Need a spoon Jenson??

It's interesting that, after Canada when button was lapped, whitmarsh authorised the swapping of chassis at races. The most likely reason for this? To make things more equal? Prove to button the chassis are equal? Whatever the reason, Lewis struggled for setup that weekend, jb found some form. I commend Lewis for keeping quiet about this, think about it, the chamssis you just won in, replaced by a lapped chassis, regardless of the engineering work done on it since, would rankle a bit. McLaren, more focused on equality than winning.

there is no problem, Jenson thought there was, nevonertheless it took an engineers meeting, and a race weekend for Lewis to setup that car/chassis. From then on, Jenson didn't get lost, how can you when you're swapping chassis every weekend. Need a spoon Jenson??

That's a good theory, I remember Hamilton's comments on that engineers meeting. Mclaren never backed Hamilton's 2012 title challenge when they should have. Hence no more top driver for Mclaren.

It's interesting that, after Canada when button was lapped, whitmarsh authorised the swapping of chassis at races. The most likely reason for this? To make things more equal? Prove to button the chassis are equal? Whatever the reason, Lewis struggled for setup that weekend, jb found some form. I commend Lewis for keeping quiet about this, think about it, the chamssis you just won in, replaced by a lapped chassis, regardless of the engineering work done on it since, would rankle a bit. McLaren, more focused on equality than winning.

Total and utter made-up garbage.

Why? Because Lewis used the same chassis in Valencia (3) that he used in Canada. In fact (barring the possibility of the unknown races) he never used chassis Nr.2 (the one Jenson had in Canada) at all throughout the season.

I'm not sure Maldonado or Hulkenberg will approach dicing with Lewis any differently to dicing with any other driver in future.

That wasn't dicing. They were BOTH ill-advised, ill-timed and in Maldonado-aforethought's case, illegal, moves. I would hope that BOTH should adjust their approaches a bit in all case, with all other competitors.

From Lewis' experience with Kimi at Spa a few years back, he knew that you cannot gain a position as a result of having all 4 outside of the track. You can bet Maldonado knows that now and I doubt if you'll see him do that again.

If you look at the Hulkenberg video, Hulkenberg is on the racing line (which was drying) but Lewis is clearly outside of the racing line on the damp. That is a risky place to be in the dry, but probably even worse with damp marbles. At no time was Lewis on the racing line, so the question is: how far do you have to go? Hulkenberg was clearly out of control entering the corner. His twitch at turn-in points this out very clearly. Basically Hulkenberg put 2 drivers (Lewis and the Caterham driver) at risk.

You could argue that Vettel didn't respond brilliantly to the pressure either. He was outqualified by Webber in two of the final three races. In Abu Dhabi he nearly lost his front wing twice with badly judged moves; in Brazil he made a terrible start, then put the car in a vulnerable position leading to his collision with Senna.

Yes, in both cases his ultimate pace was strong, but if he'd lost his front wing or retired after the spin (either of which could easily have happened) then people would be talking about how Vettel choked.

But, most importantly, Vettel didn't. To my mind, this speaks to his keen sense of risk/reward, something I think Hamilton has lacked up to this point in his career, being too risky. Button to my mind is a bit too conservative.

But then they've both won WDCs, and I haven't, so I guess we could toss my opinion out the window lol.

Anyways, what are other's opinions on the comparative risks Button and Hamilton are willing to take?

That wasn't dicing. They were BOTH ill-advised, ill-timed and in Maldonado-aforethought's case, illegal, moves. I would hope that BOTH should adjust their approaches a bit in all case, with all other competitors.

I'd also expect Hulkenberg and Maldonado to realise that contact is not in their interests. That is a separate point to the one I made. I use the term dicing to refer to competing for position.

From Lewis' experience with Kimi at Spa a few years back, he knew that you cannot gain a position as a result of having all 4 outside of the track. You can bet Maldonado knows that now and I doubt if you'll see him do that again.

So, if Lewis was morally in the right, when does he get his points back?

If you look at the Hulkenberg video, Hulkenberg is on the racing line (which was drying) but Lewis is clearly outside of the racing line on the damp. That is a risky place to be in the dry, but probably even worse with damp marbles. At no time was Lewis on the racing line, so the question is: how far do you have to go? Hulkenberg was clearly out of control entering the corner. His twitch at turn-in points this out very clearly. Basically Hulkenberg put 2 drivers (Lewis and the Caterham driver) at risk.

I don't consider the Hulkenberg incident to have been avoidable by Lewis. Or the Grosjean one.

But, most importantly, Vettel didn't. To my mind, this speaks to his keen sense of risk/reward, something I think Hamilton has lacked up to this point in his career, being too risky. Button to my mind is a bit too conservative.

But then they've both won WDCs, and I haven't, so I guess we could toss my opinion out the window lol. Anyways, what are other's opinions on the comparative risks Button and Hamilton are willing to take?

I'm of the opinion that if you take 2011 out of the equation Lewis's record of risk taking and driving wheel to wheel is superb. However, he could do with seeing the long game at times (maldo in valencia, monza 2009) and occasionally he can lose his head (monza 2010).

Clearly he takes more risks than button but due to his wheel to wheel skills he rarely comes a cropper, I don't count instances such as the hulk in brazil as being his fault or a consequence of inappropriate risk taking.

I know that as65p considers 2011 to just being the other side of the coin from say 2007 and 2012...i.e. he takes risks, sometimes he gets lucky, sometimes he doesn't. So that's another point of view, I disagree with it, I just think Lewis lost his head completely for a portion of 2011.

As for button, I think he is a bit too cautious, although it can often be an advantage, I think someone like alonso has a better grasp of when to take risk and when not too whereas button will rarely take the risk when sometimes perhaps he should.

I'm of the opinion that if you take 2011 out of the equation Lewis's record of risk taking and driving wheel to wheel is superb. However, he could do with seeing the long game at times (maldo in valencia, monza 2009) and occasionally he can lose his head (monza 2010).

Clearly he takes more risks than button but due to his wheel to wheel skills he rarely comes a cropper, I don't count instances such as the hulk in brazil as being his fault or a consequence of inappropriate risk taking.

I know that as65p considers 2011 to just being the other side of the coin from say 2007 and 2012...i.e. he takes risks, sometimes he gets lucky, sometimes he doesn't. So that's another point of view, I disagree with it, I just think Lewis lost his head completely for a portion of 2011.

As for button, I think he is a bit too cautious, although it can often be an advantage, I think someone like alonso has a better grasp of when to take risk and when not too whereas button will rarely take the risk when sometimes perhaps he should.

Indeed but i think they have both come towards each other in this anus in their time together. Whatever your views on this period i think they will both come out of it better drivers.

If he had all four wheels off the track, which I think he did at one stage, then it was illegal. That is also a separate point.

No, part and parcel of the same issue. And there is no IF. Maldonado had all 4 over the line. Basically Lewis ran him wide. However, a bit later at the point of contact, Maldonado essentially had a car width. When the contact was made, Maldonado's left front was about half over the line.On another forum, someone reminded us that A. Senna used to put people in the position where they had only 2 choices: wreck both cars or allow Senna to pass. If you allowed Senna to pass, the next time and the next and the next, etc. he would drive knowing that you would move over. In other words, he OWNED your ass. A driver of any substance can't allow that or else EVERYONE would do it. This is what I mean by territorial. You have to hold your territory or you will be everyone's doormat.

It is for Lewis to make sure that he keeps the maximum number of points. Maldonado may or may not drive differently next time. In any case, he has lost the 2012 points.

No, part and parcel of the same issue. And there is no IF. Maldonado had all 4 over the line. Basically Lewis ran him wide. However, a bit later at the point of contact, Maldonado essentially had a car width. When the contact was made, Maldonado's left front was about half over the line.

And Lewis did not finish the race. The rest does not matter.

On another forum, someone reminded us that A. Senna used to put people in the position where they had only 2 choices: wreck both cars or allow Senna to pass. If you allowed Senna to pass, the next time and the next and the next, etc. he would drive knowing that you would move over. In other words, he OWNED your ass. A driver of any substance can't allow that or else EVERYONE would do it. This is what I mean by territorial. You have to hold your territory or you will be everyone's doormat.

This is a flawed theory. In many cases, once the attacking driver has the upper hand, allowing him to pass cleanly is the smart move. Drivers like Gilles Villeneuve were famous for this kind of fairness. You can't succeed in defending every position every time no matter what the circumstances.

This is a flawed theory. In many cases, once the attacking driver has the upper hand, allowing him to pass cleanly is the smart move. Drivers like Gilles Villeneuve were famous for this kind of fairness. You can't succeed in defending every position every time no matter what the circumstances.

This is a flawed theory. In many cases, once the attacking driver has the upper hand, allowing him to pass cleanly is the smart move. Drivers like Gilles Villeneuve were famous for this kind of fairness. You can't succeed in defending every position every time no matter what the circumstances.

No, clearly this is not something that would occur everytime a position is contested. It is reserved for specific situations, such as you would have near the end of the race. The thing that is interesting is that what I said was originally stated by Martin Brundle. What you have to consider is that Senna was a 3-time WDC and Martin Brundle was, well, Martin Brundle.

That is an incredibly blinkered statement

No, not in the least. If you always yield, that will become expected. In effect it takes the decision out of the driver's hands and places it in the hands of another. Formost, a driver has to command respect. If not, perhaps another line of work may be best.

That Maldonado was off track with all four wheels makes no difference to the number of points Lewis lost. It is irrelevant context (for Lewis).

No, clearly this is not something that would occur everytime a position is contested. It is reserved for specific situations, such as you would have near the end of the race. The thing that is interesting is that what I said was originally stated by Martin Brundle. What you have to consider is that Senna was a 3-time WDC and Martin Brundle was, well, Martin Brundle.

I don't idolise Ayrton Senna or his racing ethics. I don't idolise Gilles Villeneuve either (or anyone for that matter), but he was hardly considered a soft touch.

No, not in the least. If you always yield, that will become expected. In effect it takes the decision out of the driver's hands and places it in the hands of another. Formost, a driver has to command respect. If not, perhaps another line of work may be best.

Maldonado and Hamilton had clashed at least twice before. If your hypothesis is correct, then why didn't Maldonado back off?

Maldonado and Hamilton had clashed at least twice before. If your hypothesis is correct, then why didn't Maldonado back off?

Because It's Pastor Maldonado we're talking about. Interviewed at the end of the season he says he wouldn't have done anything differently at all in that clash, zero contrition, or acceptance that he was anyway in the wrong. Hamilton accepted afterwards that he should have recognised who he was racing against. Hamilton's approach of asserting dominance in wheel to wheel encounters is largely successful, but racing in that way against blockheads like Pastor isn't the wisest thing to do.